Collins: Won’t Support SCOTUS Pick Hostile To Abortion Rights

[Oceander]

Which is the reality of what abortion is doing.   Giving both men and women less responsibility for their own behavior.  Allowing men to pressure women to have abortions to avoid the consequences of their own actions.

No matter how you cut it, abortion is evil.

And it is extremely harmful to women.

Just one of the many conflicting interests that have to be balanced.  If you think a couple of extra dollars to a man has more moral worth than a woman’s control over her own body, so be it. 

[Idiot]

When you argue that abortion not only "should be legal", but go a step further to say it "must remain legal", then you are defending abortion.


When you say the Constitution grants the unalienable right to have abortions, you are lying.  And when you champion a fulfillment of desires at the expense of someone else's life, you are advocating murder.  The destiny I choose may be to live in your house without you in it.  So if I kill you in the process of making that dream come true, is it murder?  Who decides if it is murder?  Who gets to make that rule?  The State?


Yeah, I've heard this lie before.  We were told after Roe that the number of unwanted pregnancies would only decrease because of better birth control.  The exact opposite has been the case.  We now have patches and shots that prevent pregnancy for months at a time.  Yet today the illegitimate birth rate has never been higher.  We have seen a marked increase in the number of abortions since Roe, and we have also seen a marked increase in violent crime since the Supreme Court imposed the devaluation of human life upon society.


No woman in a perfect world wants lung cancer either.  Yet women still smoke.  The only difference is that when a woman gets lung cancer, she doesn't get to kill her child.


The circumstances that compel a woman to abort are purely selfish.  Women are not the victims here.  The unborn babies are the victims.

 

[roamer_1]

Lawyers "play with" such concepts because it is insisted that a moral question become a legal one.   

There is no 'moral neutral'. There is no such thing. What you advocate is in fact a change in morality to suit the sophistry of modern living. IN FACT, Roe v Wade is a moral position in and of itself - one way to the side of immorality, but in fact it is a stand upon a 'moral' cause, as most law is.

So your gripe is made moot. You just want your 'moral' position to prevail.

[Oceander]

There is no 'moral neutral'. There is no such thing. What you advocate is in fact a change in morality to suit the sophistry of modern living. IN FACT, Roe v Wade is a moral position in and of itself - one way to the side of immorality, but in fact it is a stand upon a 'moral' cause, as most law is.

So your gripe is made moot. You just want your 'moral' position to prevail.

That stands history on its head.  Previability abortion was historically permitted until the mid 1800s.

[Idiot]

That stands history on its head.  Previability abortion was historically permitted until the mid 1800s.

Of course this makes it right....lol.

[thackney]

That stands history on its head.  Previability abortion was historically permitted until the mid 1800s.

So was slavery. But I'm sure we agree that isn't reason enough to permit it today.

[Cyber Liberty]

Those facts don't matter to the men who have such low regard for women that they don't think we can be responsible for our own behavior.

That is what has been argued here.  That women are too stupid and helpless to behave responsibly.

I've been pointing that out through this whole thread.  The only answer I got was I was the biggest misogynist in the Forum for saying:  "Abortions are for the purpose of keeping women ready and available for free sex."

The other thing I noticed is the tacit proclamation:  Men are therefore more responsible than women for the act of procreation."  I've also noticed the word-twisting by the lawyers is at record highs.

[Oceander]

So was slavery. But I'm sure we agree that isn't reason enough to permit it today.

Fair enough.  But I quite agree that turning women into baby-slaves is a bad thing to do. 

[Oceander]

I've been pointing that out through this whole thread.  The only answer I got was I was the biggest misogynist in the Forum for saying:  "Abortions are for the purpose of keeping women ready and available for free sex."

The other thing I noticed is the tacit proclamation:  Men are therefore more responsible than women for the act of procreation."  I've also noticed the word-twisting by the lawyers is at record highs.

Quite the contrary, the only people abusing women are those who feel that they have no right to control their own bodies and can willy-nilly be turned into involuntary incubators for unviable zygotes because it makes those people feel virtuous about themselves. 

[Jazzhead]

Of course this makes it right....lol.

No one said it was "right".   The moral issue is not what is being discussed.  At stake is a woman's liberty to choose her own destiny.  That liberty interest is vital and it is not going away.   Women have been freed from the patriarchy - that genie isn't going back in the bottle. Nor should it.  The State's coercion with respect to a matter of individual conscience is wholly inappropriate and un-American.

Meanwhile, advances in contraceptive effectiveness, combined with effective AND EMPATHIC persuasion regarding the moral issues and responsibilities involved, should reduce the incidence of abortion.  (In this regard,  I think, it would help a great deal if the pro-life harpies would stop labeling women as selfish murderers who kill their babies so they can retain their bikini bodies.)     

[roamer_1]

Boo, hoo, hoo.  So a couple of dollars to a man is more important than giving a woman control over her own body.

A few dollars? I know men who have been made destitute because of child support.  I can point to a man right now who lived most of his adult life in a camp trailer directly because of child support payments... Unable to marry, unable to have a house of his own. And when his father died, and he inherited, long after those children were raised, the state confiscated that inheritance to pay for the overage across those years that he was unable to pay.

It is not a case of merely 'a few dollars'.

And quite frankly, the comparison is utterly inapposite because if the woman chooses to abort, then there is no child, and no financial obligation for the traveling dick or anyone else. 

A remarkably opportune decision except in that a life is snuffed out.

On the other hand, if we let the dick off the hook because it’s not fair to make him pay for his sexual flings, then the costs of raising the child are still there - they don’t go away just because “daddy” runs off - which means that more likely than not the taxpayers will be called upon to pay for some of those.  It may not be fair in some universe to make “daddy” pay for his progeny, but it’s much fairer than putting the burden on the taxpayers who had nothing to do with the conception at all.

That is wholly untrue. That gal can drop that kid at any hospital or church, and that child will find a home.

The hilarity of this whole argument is that society had a remarkable solution to ALL of this, but a generation  or two ago ... Marriage, and sex only within the bonds thereof.

But Lord knows we can't go back to that... even though there were few bastard children. and few single parent households, and the wealth of one generation passed on to the next... Like it has been for all time.

[Smokin Joe]

Fair enough.  But I quite agree that turning women into baby-slaves is a bad thing to do.

The difference is so simple. So basic, counselor, in that the decision to engage in activity which can lead to pregnancy is one generally conducted with full foreknowledge of the potential results and consent of the actors.

It is not servitude entered initially into in an involuntary manner, the consequences of unprotected sexual acts are very well known,  completely avoidable, either by refusing to engage in sexual activity or preventing conception.

[Idiot]

No one said it was "right".   The moral issue is not what is being discussed.  At stake is a woman's liberty to choose her own destiny.  That liberty interest is vital and it is not going away.   Women have been freed from the patriarchy - that genie isn't going back in the bottle. Nor should it.  The State's coercion with respect to a matter of individual conscience is wholly inappropriate and un-American.

Meanwhile, advances in contraceptive effectiveness, combined with effective AND EMPATHIC persuasion regarding the moral issues and responsibilities involved, should reduce the incidence of abortion.  (In this regard,  I think, it would help a great deal if the pro-life harpies would stop labeling women as selfish murderers who kill their babies so they can retain their bikini bodies.)   

I stand in support of the unborn child.

[Bigun]

The difference is so simple. So basic, counselor, in that the decision to engage in activity which can lead to pregnancy is one generally conducted with full foreknowledge of the potential results and consent of the actors.

It is not servitude entered initially into in an involuntary manner, the consequences of unprotected sexual acts are very well known,  completely avoidable, either by refusing to engage in sexual activity or preventing conception.

Arguing with some people is like arguing with a turnstile at the ball park.  No matter how many times you blow their BS out of the water they come right back with it again and again.   Like a dog returns to his vomit.

[Right_in_Virginia]

I pray no woman in the throes of making the most monumental decision of her life finds herself reading this thread.

[Frank Cannon]

I pray no woman in the throes of making the most monumental decision of her life finds herself reading this thread.

What's that? Deciding what handbag goes with her heels?

[INVAR]

The hilarity of this whole argument is that society had a remarkable solution to ALL of this, but a generation  or two ago ... Marriage, and sex only within the bonds thereof.

But Lord knows we can't go back to that... even though there were few bastard children. and few single parent households, and the wealth of one generation passed on to the next... Like it has been for all time.

How dare you type that and remind everyone what morality once was regarded as in this country!

Insensitive morally-superior/holier-than-thou Christian Extremist bastard!

(There, got it in before anyone else did).

[txradioguy]

Someone needs to ask Collins about why she was only one of three Republicans to vote against the partial birth abortion ban.

And for those in here that insist abortion on demand is the law of the land and no part of it can ever be overturned by the SCOTUS...I might suggest you read up on Gonzales v Carhart and Gonzales vPlanned Parenthood.

Finally I wonder how many here realize that Justice Blackmon didn't actually write his majority opinion...that his law clerks admitted years later to writing it for him?

[Oceander]

A few dollars? I know men who have been made destitute because of child support.  I can point to a man right now who lived most of his adult life in a camp trailer directly because of child support payments... Unable to marry, unable to have a house of his own. And when his father died, and he inherited, long after those children were raised, the state confiscated that inheritance to pay for the overage across those years that he was unable to pay.

It is not a case of merely 'a few dollars'.

A remarkably opportune decision except in that a life is snuffed out.

That is wholly untrue. That gal can drop that kid at any hospital or church, and that child will find a home.

The hilarity of this whole argument is that society had a remarkable solution to ALL of this, but a generation  or two ago ... Marriage, and sex only within the bonds thereof.

But Lord knows we can't go back to that... even though there were few bastard children. and few single parent households, and the wealth of one generation passed on to the next... Like it has been for all time.

Yeah, abortion was nonexistent right up until 1970. 

[roamer_1]

How dare you type that and remind everyone what morality once was regarded as in this country!

Insensitive morally-superior/holier-than-thou Christian Extremist bastard!

(There, got it in before anyone else did).

LOL!
 

Don't worry, it'll all work out. Since we abort so many, we are no longer sustaining a viable population, which is another aspect the liberals have not considered.

And the destruction of the family has weakened the generation that actually DID get born that might have defended us. And the destruction of inherited wealth has left them without means even if they do escape the moral turpitude.

Soon enough it will all be over... And the great American experiment will be thrown on the dust-heap of decadence, like a common democracy.

Congratulations, y'all. so much 'winning'.

[Oceander]

Someone needs to ask Collins about why she was only one of three Republicans to vote against the partial birth abortion ban.

And for those in here that insist abortion on demand is the law of the land and no part of it can ever be overturned by the SCOTUS...I might suggest you read up on Gonzales v Carhart and Gonzales vPlanned Parenthood.

Finally I wonder how many here realize that Justice Blackmon didn't actually write his majority opinion...that his law clerks admitted years later to writing it for him?

Big deal.  About 30 percent of the opinions issued by the Supreme Court are almost completely drafted by a law clerk. 

[musiclady]

Just one of the many conflicting interests that have to be balanced. If you think a couple of extra dollars to a man has more moral worth than a woman’s control over her own body, so be it.

I said nothing even remotely close to this, @Oceander - and you KNOW it.

It is obvious that you understand that you are losing this argument in spades, so you have to resort to distortions, contortions and deception.

Shame on you for that.

If you get one point out of all of this, I hope you realize that you, Oceander, were, from the moment of conception, YOU.  You were never your mother's body.  You were never someone who should have been tortured, dismembered and your tiny body destroyed because your mother didn't think you were worth bothering with. 

You were worth something special, as is every child who is and has been discarded into a Mengele trash can.

Abortion is evil.  It harms women.  It harms men.  It destroys culture.  It destroys society.  And it is destroying the country we all care about.

If you can live with yourself after supporting it and arguing all day for it with leftist propaganda, so be it.

But I still think you are better than what you have said and done here.

In fact, I know you are.

[Oceander]

The difference is so simple. So basic, counselor, in that the decision to engage in activity which can lead to pregnancy is one generally conducted with full foreknowledge of the potential results and consent of the actors.

It is not servitude entered initially into in an involuntary manner, the consequences of unprotected sexual acts are very well known,  completely avoidable, either by refusing to engage in sexual activity or preventing conception.

And the moment you refuse to let her abort it, it becomes servitude.  It really is just that simple. 

[Oceander]

I said nothing even remotely close to this, @Oceander - and you KNOW it.

It is obvious that you understand that you are losing this argument in spades, so you have to resort to distortions, contortions and deception.

Shame on you for that.

If you get one point out of all of this, I hope you realize that you, Oceander, were, from the moment of conception, YOU.  You were never your mother's body.  You were never someone who should have been tortured, dismembered and your tiny body destroyed because your mother didn't think you were worth bothering with. 

You were worth something special, as is every child who is and has been discarded into a Mengele trash can.

Abortion is evil.  It harms women.  It harms men.  It destroys culture.  It destroys society.  And it is destroying the country we all care about.

If you can live with yourself after supporting it and arguing all day for it with leftist propaganda, so be it.

But I still think you are better than what you have said and done here.

In fact, I know you are.

Thanks for so much virtue-signaling.

[roamer_1]

Yeah, abortion was nonexistent right up until 1970.

It was exceedingly rare and shameful, all the way back to Egypt. Not just a Christian thing, mind you. It is industrialization that made the notion possible that a child was a burden and another mouth to feed.

In normative agrarian and nomadic terms, the child is valuable. Priceless even.